Because development and permitting fees aren’t the problem. People already want to build new homes. We just don’t allow them to do so.
In fact, those subsidies are often part of the problem. The only way to get new development approved in many cases is to include a number of below-market units in the development… even though they are subsidized, that mandate kills the economics of the project. It happens often enough that you start to wonder if maybe that isn’t the point.
Well whatever. Hand vacancy taxes to developers as straight cash incentives to build more. Bonus per unit completed or any other metric that isn't subject to gaming. The point is, make it cheaper to build.
I never said don't reform zoning or permitting. Allow building easily and charge a vacancy tax. Literally my first sentence in this thread was "Why not both?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48262501
It's entirely correct to say that cities are the main obstacle to building housing, but it's not true to say that everyone wants to build more.
Whether or not a project pencils out depends on local demand and interest rates. An unfortunately common sight in SF is that developers start construction before getting all the required permits to finish, then the city drags its feet for half a decade, then when the permits are finally granted the building no longer pencils and the foundation or skeleton are left to rot.
The timeliness is important; the goal for most finished buildings is that they provide so much supply that building new ones isn't financially viable.
In my experience, the same people who oppose building more housing also oppose vacancy taxes.
Why not both? Subsidize development and permitting fees with vacancy taxes.
Because development and permitting fees aren’t the problem. People already want to build new homes. We just don’t allow them to do so.
In fact, those subsidies are often part of the problem. The only way to get new development approved in many cases is to include a number of below-market units in the development… even though they are subsidized, that mandate kills the economics of the project. It happens often enough that you start to wonder if maybe that isn’t the point.
Well whatever. Hand vacancy taxes to developers as straight cash incentives to build more. Bonus per unit completed or any other metric that isn't subject to gaming. The point is, make it cheaper to build.
I think you're misunderstanding the problem. Everyone wants to build more. Cities won't let them. It's often arbitrary and capricious.
I never said don't reform zoning or permitting. Allow building easily and charge a vacancy tax. Literally my first sentence in this thread was "Why not both?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48262501
Why not both: because you'll get the vacancy tax and not the reform. Organizers target the easier work.
This is not quite true.
It's entirely correct to say that cities are the main obstacle to building housing, but it's not true to say that everyone wants to build more.
Whether or not a project pencils out depends on local demand and interest rates. An unfortunately common sight in SF is that developers start construction before getting all the required permits to finish, then the city drags its feet for half a decade, then when the permits are finally granted the building no longer pencils and the foundation or skeleton are left to rot.
The timeliness is important; the goal for most finished buildings is that they provide so much supply that building new ones isn't financially viable.
"Everyone" as in "nearly every project is proposed to the maximum allowed for its site." Almost every project built would be larger if permitted.
Development and permitting cost (fees plus time) are most certainly a part of the problem.
I think it was sarcasm.
Given that their reply is on decreasing development fees, it seems that they understood the sarcasm.
What's sarcastic about saying "charge a vacancy tax and allow building more"?
I think they were saying the comment the comment they replied to replied to was being sarcastic, not the comment they replied to.